If you don't have Synergy at your fingertips, the most advanced DVR/satellite television system at your disposal or millions of frequent flyer miles and no day job to worry about, this year's draft is pretty much a complete crapshoot. Scouting reports, YouTube clips, expert opinions - there isn't much else to go on. With a dearth of information, pretty much all we have to lean on is past experience. In other words, our biases.
Personally, when a name first hits my radar, I do everything I can to see him play. If he's a college player, I'll make a point of watching a couple of games. If he's an overseas player, YouTube is my main asset. I catch as much video as I can, then I take a look at whatever I can find to read about them, then I look at their measurements from the combine.
When I'm looking at potential Sixers, it really boils down to two things:
- An uncanny innate ability
- A remarkable physical advantage
The second is a bit more complicated to explain. The physical advantage can be great size for their position (coupled with the ability to actually play that position. A 6'10" point guard who can't handle the ball is useless). The other kind of physical advantage is athleticism, but it's more complicated than that.
Pure athleticism doesn't mean a whole lot. Rodney Carney is a perfect example. The guy can sprint in a straight line as fast as anyone, he can jump as high as anyone, and when he's on a basketball court, that's pretty much all he can do. Run in a straight line and jump. There's no fluidity to his movement. No change of pace, no change of direction, basically stop or go, run and jump. Useful in a track meet, not so much in a basketball game. Quickness is more important than top-end speed. Getting off the floor quickly, and repeatedly is more important than max height on a jump. Having the ability to do amazing things with your body isn't enough, to be a remarkable athlete in the NBA, you need the brain to go along with it. I'm not talking about basketball IQ, I'm talking about athletic IQ. Watch Dwyane Wade for five minutes and you'll see what I'm talking about. You need to have a body capable of doing things no one else can do, and the brain to get your body to do them quickly and effectively. It's a rarity to have top-end athleticism coupled with a brain capable of getting the most out of it. Given the choice between a stiff world-class athlete and a good athlete with fluidity and lightning-quick reflexes, I'll take the latter. This is a distinction that isn't that hard to make, even with limited film to watch.
When I talk about uncanny abilities, there are certain things I consider just natural. Shooting, rebounding, shotblocking and passing come to mind. Again, these skills show themselves pretty easily. When a pure shooter gets a sliver of air space and gets the shot up, you're surprised when it doesn't fall. Having a "nose for the ball" sounds like BS old school scouting lingo, but when you see four or five guys go up for a rebound and the same guy comes out of the pack with the ball again and again, there's a reason. Maybe it's an advanced, instinctual understanding of physics, maybe it's desire but it rarely lies. Dominant rebounders are pretty much dominant rebounders if given the opportunity. Poor rebounders can improve, but they're never going to catch the dominant guys. Shotblocking breaks down the same way, it takes athletic coordination to time the jump and it takes a certain mindset that every time an opponent tries to get a shot in paint, that's a chance to reject him. Some guys have it, some guys don't.
If those are the things I value, then there must be red flags as well. Attitude is probably the first. If a guy is lazy in college, I tend to believe he's probably going to be lazy when he gets to the NBA. Sometimes it doesn't work out that way, but I'd rather not take the chance unless he's just an absolute steal when you're drafting and you don't have a solid option at the position. When it comes to crazy guys, it depends how the insanity plays out. Quirky is good. Crazy passionate is good. Just plain crazy is unpredictable and bad. It's a fine line. This is also pretty much impossible to judge from afar. All we have are reports on what happened, and a lot of the time you only hear whispers after the fact about guys having bad attitudes when they were in college.
Above all, though, my biggest red flag is a player who puts up amazing numbers with an advanced skillset. By no means am I saying it's a bad thing that a player develops his game at an early age or shows the work ethic to hone the fundamentals. What I'm talking about is the player who doesn't have one of the two attributes I look for, but uses over-developed skills to produce against what I consider lacking talent in the NCAA or overseas. The best example I can think of is a big man with bordeline NBA size and athleticism who has a few really good post moves and uses them to score a ton of points against shoddy interior defenders. He makes a career out of it playing in the Big Ten or something, then we start hearing about his high BB IQ, his solid fundamentals and no one worries about whether those moves will have any impact at all against legitimate NBA players. I guess the point is that a guy like that is pretty much topped out. He may be able to score efficiently against NCAA-level defenders with his host of moves, but he's going to be shut down when it comes to facing even average NBA players. He doesn't have the size, strength, reach or lift to even get his shot off in the NBA, and what's he going to do? He's already developed his moves, maybe he can add a new wrinkle or something, but at the end of the day, he's still going to be too weak, or too small, or too slow to compete.
So let's bring this full circle and apply it to some guys we've all been talking about. This is my take, and why I feel the way I do:
- Bismack Biyombo - The numbers tell me he's got the rebounding and shotblocking abilities I look for. The scouting reports all talk about his intensity and aggression. This is a guy who desperately wants to block every shot that goes up, grab every available rebound, and dunk the ball whenever he touches it. He's got a freak build (7'6" wingspan, 9'3" reach, 240+ pounds with room to grow). He qualifies in both categories, in spades. Watching YouTube highlight reels is never a great way to judge a player, everyone looks good dunking and blocking shots, but one play in particular from this reel caught my eye. At the 5:30 mark, Biyombo is under the hoop and blocks a shot off a baseline drive. The other team gets the ball and kicks it out for what should've been a wide-open three. Watch how quickly he closes out on the shooter. That's a PF/C moving that quickly, and moving that quickly alone isn't the impressive thing. It's that he realized immediately what was going on around him, and he reacted. Immediately. Unbelievable physical skills and the brain to use them. That's what I see in him. I also see a perfect fit for the Sixers. That's why I'm so big on moving up to get him.
- Enes Kanter - Kanter is a strange case. There's virtually no tape to watch, and really no one has seen him play a meaningful minute for over a year. When you read scouting reports, mostly what people talk about is his developed low-post game and face-up ability. Both meaningful skills for a big. He measured out pretty well at the combine and seems to be a decent athlete. The thing that scares me about Kanter comes from the limited video I have seen. Basically, Kanter was regularly the biggest guy on the floor and whenever he caught the ball in the post, he used a series of nifty moves then finished below the rim. I didn't see him pushing people around. I didn't see him using his body to clear out space and then finish with authority. I saw a guy who didn't seem particularly quick who used spins and up-and-unders to clear enough space to get up a soft shot. That doesn't impress me. Obviously, he could be much stronger now than he was 18 months ago. Perhaps if he played against legit defenders he'd realize that soft shots on the inside wind up in the second row against legit shotblockers, but the player I've seen won't be successful on the inside in the NBA. I worry that once he realizes this, he's going to turn into a face-up guy only and unless he winds up shooting like Dirk, that's just not a valuable commodity to me.
- Derrick Williams - In the games I saw Williams play, he dominated with his size, athleticism and shooting. That's a rare combo, and a winning combo. I'd build a team around this guy if given the chance. I wouldn't make him a three, though, I'd make him a four and I'd build my offense around the tremendous mismatch he creates at the position. I guess I'd be crossing my fingers that he'd be at least an average defender at the four, though if he's better than that, he could be great overall.
- Kenneth Faried - He lacks the size, but rebounding numbers like he had in college don't lie. I'd be comfortable taking him at #16, depending on who else is on the board.
- Jan Vesely - Good size, poor rebounding, perimeter player who isn't a great shooter. Pass.
- Jonas Valanciunas - Good size, solid rebounding and shotblocking numbers in Europe. I like him the most of the European bigs.
- Donatas Motiejunas - This guy's numbers scream bust to me. He striikes me as a guy who's going to have to live on the perimeter in the NBA, which would be fine if he was a wing, but he's a center. Poor rebounding and shotblocking numbers, plus too many turnovers.
So there you have it. My process in a nutshell and how I feel about some of the names. I'm fully aware that I have biases, and most of my opinions are based on those biases. I'm not a guy who watches a ton of college basketball games, partially because I don't have the time, but mostly because I find college ball to be a terribly inferior game to the NBA, pretty much to the point where it's unwatchable unless there's a particular player I'm interested in or the drama of the tourney is added to the equation. It's obviously not perfect, but it's all I've got.
Have at it in the comments.
"Above all, though, my biggest red flag is a player who puts up amazing numbers with an advanced skillset. By no means am I saying it's a bad thing that a player develops his game at an early age or shows the work ethic to hone the fundamentals. What I'm talking about is the player who doesn't have one of the two attributes I look for, but uses over-developed skills to produce against what I consider lacking talent in the NCAA or overseas. "
I've heard it said that the Big Ten had only 1 legit NBA prospect playing in 2009/10.
If there was only one, how legit was he though?
Sullinger?
Wouldn't Sullinger be 10/11?
That would make Turner the only prospect in 09/10?
Yeah, I'm referring to Turner. One of the minor qualms people had with him was that he literally never played against a future NBA player in the Big Ten. And the few times he was matched against NBA caliber athletes in non Big Ten games he had some struggles (I'm thinking of the Tennessee game.)
It made it a bit harder to know how well his skills would translate- but that is an issue with whomever you draft.
I'm a Buckeye/Turner guy. He also was pretty inefficient against North Carolina and West Virginia his junior year, but still put up numbers by taking a lot of shots.
Yeah, I remember going back and watching some game archives when the Sixers got the #2 pick. Against athletic defenders he was often underwhelming to the eye, but still put up good numbers and the team did well. It was a bit disappointing, but did not sour me to him as an elite prospect- especially since I only saw some of his games.
Well these sound like thoughtful and informed takes, and you've certainly watched way more of these guys than I have. I just feel that, in drafting, one can't be too wedded to a type, because great players come in all types. There aren't a ton of poor athletes who succeed in the NBA, but there are plenty of pretty ordinary ones.
I generally agree with your method of evaluation, but i also believe that all great or even very good players are different in some way from everybody else. That means you can't have strict boundaries to any type of player, unless we are talking about character issues that i too believe are a huge red flags.
That being said from the little that i've seen from these players i disagree about your evaluations of them (admittedly i've seen less than you have).
- I agree about most of the stuff about Biyombo, but i am worried about his BB IQ. He looked out of control to me in the videos that i've seen. He is a great athlete with tremendous desire to be successful (which is huge for a big man btw), but has close to zero actual basketball knowledge and BB IQ. His sense for rebounding and shot blocking is very good, but that mostly comes from his effort instead of timing and positioning. All in all i would definitely take a gamble on him, but not if one of Valanciunas and Kanter are left on the board.
- Kanter looks to me like a better athlete than most give him credit for. He also has a ton of moves in the post. He also never looked like he shied away from contact. Quite the opposite. Strong play inside and contact doesn't equal dunks.
- Valanciunas is a guy who probably has the biggest upside of all the big men in the draft. He looks like a solid rebounder shot blocker and i think can be a decent P&R partner for Jrue and Evan. He needs to add more strength though to be successful in the NBA which is why he is second on my board behind Kanter
- Vesely is never going to be a star but can be a very good player in the mold of Kirilenko or even Marion. He is a poor fit with the current Sixers setup but if he falls i would definitely take him.
- Farried is a smaller version of Reggie Evans.
- D. Williams is the most difficult one to project IMO. Something about him screams bust to me. He is the definition of the bust type of player you described. He put up very good numbers against weak opposition. He is good in a decent in a lot of stuff, but is not elite in anything (actually far from it). But most important of all he looks like a guy who won't be able to defend neither the 3 nor the 4 at the NBA level at all and at the same time won't be the focal point on offense. All in all i would only take him if he fell out of the top 5-7 which definitely won't happen.
- Motiejunas is a huge risk/reward type of player. At #16 he is a decent pick, but i wouldn't move up for him.
- I would add the Morris brothers here because a lot of mocks have the Sixers taking one of them. PLEASE NO!!! They both scream major bust to me...
Sixers are scheduled to start holding college workouts Saturday.
I think if a guy lacks tremendous athleticism he better have a dead-eye jumper or have some other unique skill (Nash's passing, or a big's rebounding.) And even with Nash, he would struggle without a good jumper.
Yep, that sums it up. If they have both, then you're onto something.
Moti isn't really perimeter oriented. Of the 5 international prospects, his post game is the most refined, with the possible exception of Kanter, and he's as good as any of them at getting to the line.
He may very well end up being a bust (although I'm not sure he really could be in the teens), but it will be more because of his defense/rebounding not being good enough to allow him to see the court than it will be because of him being a perimeter focused big man.
Yeah, my concern with him was that he wouldn't have the strength to play in the post in the NBA, so he'd be forced to the perimeter.
He's added quite a bit of upper body strength, and his lower body doesn't seem underdeveloped for his age. I'm not overly worried about that.
Does anyone else get the old 90's Bulls Finals feeling?
One favored team stacked with superstars against agiing stars making one last push for a Title.
The Mavs with Kidd, Dirk, Terry etc remind me of the Finals teams that lost to the Bulls. The Suns, Blazers and Jazz teams were all older. Although the Mavs most resemble the 2004 Lakers team that lost- the one with Malone, Payton and Shaq all over 30 (although Kobe was only 25.) Still not sure how that Lakers team lost with Kobe and Shaq in their prime?
The only feeling I'm getting is that the only logical thing to do in the NBA today is to build a team designed to beat the Heat. No one else really matters.
I also wouldn't completely discount Vesely. He's a freak athlete. You get that kind of length and athleticism, and you see whether the shot is broken and it can come around. I think it can. You like length on the perimeter defensively, he can be an option.
Vesely strikes me as a wing who can't shoot and can't really handle the ball.
He's made strides with his handle. It's more his touch around the hoop that's the concern on drives.
His jumper isn't yet effective, but it doesn't appear broke to me either.
Nobody (literally) in this draft is without major weaknesses that you have to project improvement down the road.
Yep, I see what you're saying. There's something there to work with.
I would be very happy to get either Biyombo or Kanter on our team if we move up in the draft, but my pick would still be Valanciunas. He's got the size, he plays hard like Noah, and he can also play in the pick and roll with Jrue. He's got all the tools and as big an upside as anyone in the draft, but whether he gets there or how long it takes him, who knows?
Thoroughly enjoyed this post. There are always guys who I become "attached" to and believe have a future in the NBA. One guy who I liked from the moment I first saw him was Marshon Brooks his freshman year at Providence.. I hope he does well just because it would convince me I'm a basketball genius... kidding ofcourse.
Then there are guys like Keyon Dooling. Granted I was only 14 when he became my "next great player" at Missouri, but I was totally off on him. In this draft there aren't many guys I truly like, but it's still a lot of fun watching their videos and seeing who the new guys are. It's the best part of the NBA, the unique qualities of every player, and this post did a great job of summing it all up.
Guys I get attached to i often get attached to for reasons that have nothing to do with on the court. I've only ever 'wanted' three guys on the sixers (in recent memory), like long before they even declared for the draft (one guy a year before he declared)
Iguodala
Turiaf
Speights
Yes, I'll still admit I wanted speights on the sixers.
I know now why biymobo gives me pause and it's purely because his name makes me think of this company whose trucks i see all over the damn town. Man they're awful
I guess Dooling's a pretty good defender to be able to hang around for so long without being able to score or run an offense that well.
Not doing around the web any more due to time restrictions - but this question from hollingers chat is interested - cause if he's right - it screws capped teams A LOT - i thought the biannual would bite the dust.
Matt (PA)
What do you think will happen to the mid level exception in the new CBA?
John Hollinger
(2:55 PM)
Dead. No chance of survival. There may be some limited form of exception remaining (like the curent biannual exception, for instance), but killing the MLE is right near the top of the owners' priority list.
Chad Ford on an issue that was supposed to be a problem in the NFL but might be a problem in the NBA (the original question was about 'contract amnesty' and the magic)
They are. The Lakers are. The Wizards are. I could go on. The problem is that there have been a lot of small market teams that have been incredibly frugal. Why would they agree to let the big market teams off for making irresponsible gambles. The most underreported story out of the whole CBA negotiations is the major split between big market and small market owners on everything from amnesty to more important issues like revenue sharing. It's tough to have labor peace with the union when NBA owners can't get their own house in order.
More From Ford regarding trading the #4 for Rudy Gay, Iguodala or Ellis
Gay has the most interest right now. The Grizzlies still have to lock up Marc Gasol to a long-term deal and after their run this year, I think they believe Rudy isn't a necessity. Cavs would love him. But they're not the only team. He's a bit overpaid, but he's just 24 years old. Clippers would love to get their hands on him. Just not sure they have the players to get it done.
John Hollinger said in no uncertain terms that Memphis will in no way trade Rudy Gay or entertain trading Rudy gay.
Thorn needs to bring Brian into any negotiations regarding Iguodala, nobody seems to think he's that valuable. I think it's crazy that a potential cap suicide guy like Gay is a better buy than Iguodala (that contract is outrageous, and will be even more so in the new CBA most likely) So what if he's 24, he's coming off a pretty bad shoulder injury, and it doesn't seem all that likely that he's going to become a significantly better player going forward.
He got a little better this year. He made nearly 40% of his threes, had his highest win shares per 48, TS%. Though I guess I agree that if the reason he got better is simply that he became a better shooter, there's not so much room for improvement.
So yeah, Rubio would never play in minny. He doesn't like the cold weather, wants to be in a big market etc etc.
Rubio/Johnson/Williams/Love core is going to be interesting to watch.
And Randolph.
Whats up with Rubio? Will Minnesota's rights to him ever expire? Can sign as a FA if this happens?
The rights only expired if he completely sat out of professional hoops for an entire year, then he'd go back into the draft, not become a free agent. At least that's what I remember from reports a couple years back.
I saw a headline in passing that the deadline for Rubio to sign under the terms of the current CBA was today. I guess he likes money more than warm weather. I'm pretty sure one thing that's going to get chopped is rookie scale deals. That's something guys already in the league won't be affected by, so it's a point they'll probably concede to gain something else. Same goes for raising the minimum age requirement.
There was no way Rubio was getting out of Minny unless he completely sat out a year of basketball, or somehow got Minny to trade him, so it looks like he opted to take the more lucrative rookie deal.
Personally, I think this makes it more likely that Khan will trade the #2 pick. He's got his PG now, he's going to think it's time to add a veteran or two to his roster to make the next step. I'll be surprised if they don't move the pick.
This might explain why they were(are?) looking to move back to the 4th and 8th pick. Looking to get a big and depth in the draft. Don't think they'd get the big in a trade. Unless we're talking Kaman.
Sooner he starts in the NBA, sooner he can go play for a better team for better money. Wolves made it pretty clear they ween't trading his rights, so he gets in under the old deal.
Ricky Enters, Shaq Leaves, as far as I'm concerned, net gain for the NBA